Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Jan 4:10:1068582.
doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.1068582. eCollection 2022.

TikTok and adolescent vision health: Content and information quality assessment of the top short videos related to myopia

Shuai Ming  1   2   3 , Jie Han  4 , Meng Li  5 , Yan Liu  1   3 , Kunpeng Xie  6 , Bo Lei  1   2   3
Affiliations

TikTok and adolescent vision health: Content and information quality assessment of the top short videos related to myopia

Shuai Ming et al. Front Public Health. .

Abstract

Background: Despite the increasing recognition of the public health value of social media platforms, TikTok short videos focusing on adolescent vision health have not received much attention. We aimed to evaluate the content, sources, and information quality of myopia-related videos on TikTok.

Methods: The top 200 most-liked myopia-related videos on the Chinese version of TikTok were queried and screened on March 12, 2022. The descriptive characteristics, contents, and sources of the selected 168 videos were obtained, and their overall quality, reliability, understandability, and actionability were assessed using the validated scoring instruments DISCERN and PEMAT-A/V.

Results: Medical professionals were the main source (45.8%, 77/168) of videos. Misinformation (10.1%, 17/168) was mainly attributable to for-profit organizations (20%, 3/15) and individual non-medical users (31.3%, 10/32). However, their videos enjoyed the highest numbers of "likes," "comments," and "shares" (P < 0.05). The mean reliability and overall quality regarding treatment choice were (2.5 ± 0.5) and (3.1 ± 0.9), respectively. Videos on TikTok showed relatively high understandability (84.7%) and moderate actionability (74.9%). Video producers tended to partly or fully provide information regarding management (81.5%, 137/168) and outcome (82.1%, 138/168), and to ignore or only slightly mention content related to definition (86.9%, 146/169) and signs (82.1%, 138/168). The five video sources showed significant differences in the prevalence of misleading information (P < 0.001), publication reliability (P < 0.001), overall quality (P = 0.039), content score (P = 0.019), and understandability (P = 0.024).

Conclusion: Considering the moderate-to-poor reliability and variable quality across video sources, the substantial myopia-related content on TikTok should be treated with caution. Nevertheless, TikTok videos may serve as a surrogate or supplement for information dissemination if providers can ensure more comprehensive and accurate content.

Keywords: TikTok; information quality; misinformation; myopia; public health; social media.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The flow chart of the inclusion method of the retrived tiktok videos.
Figure 2
Figure 2
The mean DISCERN score for each item. Error bars: +/− 1 SD (standard devision). Item 1. Clear aims. Item 2. Achieves aims. Item 3. Relevant. Item 4. Clear sources of information. Item 5. Clear date of publication. Item 6. Unbiased. Item 7. Provides additional sources. Item 8. Describes areas of uncertainty. Item 9. Describes mechanism of action for treatment. Item 10. Describes benefites of treatment. Item 11. Describers risks of treatment. Item 12. Describes what would happen without treatment. Item 13. Describes how treatment would affect life quality. Item 14. Deacribes atternative treatment. Item 15. Supports shared decision making. Item 16. Overall quality regarding treatment choices.
Figure 3
Figure 3
The proportion of videos addressing each content of myopia.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Scatter plot of DISCERN scores and content score. r, coefficient of pearson product-moment correlation.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Xu T, Wang B, Liu H, Wang H, Yin P, Dong W, et al. . Prevalence and causes of vision loss in China from 1990 to 2019: findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet Public Health. (2020) 5:e682–91. 10.1016/S2468-2667(20)30254-1 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bourne RR, Flaxman SR, Braithwaite T, Cicinelli MV, Das A, Jonas JB, et al. . Magnitude, temporal trends, and projections of the global prevalence of blindness and distance and near vision impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Glob Health. (2017) 5:e888–97. - PubMed
    1. Baird PN, Saw SM, Lanca C, Guggenheim JA, Smith III EL, Zhou X, et al. . Myopia. Nat Rev Dis Primers. (2020) 6:99. 10.1038/s41572-020-00231-4 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Dong L, Kang YK Li Y, Wei WB, Jonas JB. Prevalence and time trends of myopia in children and adolescents in China, a systemic review and meta-analysis. Retina. (2020) 40:399–411. 10.1097/IAE.0000000000002590 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Zhang J, Li Z, Ren J, Wang W, Dai J, Li C, et al. . Prevalence of myopia: a large-scale population-based study among children and adolescents in Weifang, China. Front Public Health. (2022) 10:924566. 10.3389/fpubh.2022.924566 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources